>>61
you pointed to the wrong post, but anyway..
I'll make a small concession. The fallacy I refer to often is that people assume something is false when they have not seen evidence of it. It is a fallacy. It is wrong to do that. I'll admit, however, that if you knew that there is absolutely no evidence of something anywhere, then you could say it doesn't exist, or that it's existence had no effect anyway so it's existence didn't matter. This is what you've been arguing; that there is no evidence anywhere ever of certain claims, so they're not true. So the problem may not be the fallacy so much as something else.
Ah, yes, the problem is you probably don't fucking know if there isn't any evidence that we haven't found in the entire universe of something. Here, let's check your latest argument, which relies on two claims.
"FACT: The evidence for a universe-shitting bowel is ZERO."
(1) Please, explain how you know there is no evidence in the universe of a universe-shitting bowel.
"FACT: The probability of detecting such an enormous aberration is ONE."
(2) Please, explain why this would be true, or why detecting something is necessary for it to be true. There is a difference between something existing, and people correctly noticing and attributing it's effects.
Here's the thing: if there were a universe shitting bowel that swallowed and shit out the entire universe every 5.3912×10-44 seconds in a manner that preserved the relative positions and masses and physics of everything we see, you wouldn't have a fucking clue.
(3) What would constitute evidence of this?
(4) Can you say there is 0 evidence that this is currently happening?
(5) What would be the probability of us detecting this?
(6) Can you say, with complete certainty, that this is not what is happening currently in our universe?
So please, do answer those 6 questions. Please number your responses for clarity, if you don't mind, sir. Note: 2 and 5 are the same question, so you can skip one. Since your omniscient, my challenge shouldn't be too difficult.